agoglanian
Reconnected.
Hi everyone,
As I anxiously await the delivery of my M240 I am trying to make plans for the kit I want to use. I would love to be able to use native Leica glass but right now I just can't afford it. I chose to go with the M240 because I was able to buy it from Tamarkin and have a warranty, and its feature-set is a little more in line with my needs. (Sidenote: I just sold my whole Canon kit to fund this kit purchase)
Anyways, I have tracked down a Zeiss 35mm f/2 as 35mm is overall my favorite focal length, followed very closely by 50mm.
I plan to buy the ZM Planar 50mm soon, but I was trying to decide on a wide angle, I may explore the possibility of an older 90mm in the future, but right now it isn't a high priority. I don't want to have too many lenses to be honest for this kit.
As far as focal lengths I am very comfortable with, 21, 24/25 and 28 are all right up there, with 28mm being arguably the most comfortable, followed by 21 and then 24/25 for me. I know some would say that 28/35/50 is way too close, and others would say it's perfect.
If for now I wanted to just have one wide angle (this doesn't mean forever), which of the ZM wides would you go with? I do shoot landscape work often, and architecture, but I probably won't be doing much commercial architecture work anymore as I'm shifting my photography priorities.
As I anxiously await the delivery of my M240 I am trying to make plans for the kit I want to use. I would love to be able to use native Leica glass but right now I just can't afford it. I chose to go with the M240 because I was able to buy it from Tamarkin and have a warranty, and its feature-set is a little more in line with my needs. (Sidenote: I just sold my whole Canon kit to fund this kit purchase)
Anyways, I have tracked down a Zeiss 35mm f/2 as 35mm is overall my favorite focal length, followed very closely by 50mm.
I plan to buy the ZM Planar 50mm soon, but I was trying to decide on a wide angle, I may explore the possibility of an older 90mm in the future, but right now it isn't a high priority. I don't want to have too many lenses to be honest for this kit.
As far as focal lengths I am very comfortable with, 21, 24/25 and 28 are all right up there, with 28mm being arguably the most comfortable, followed by 21 and then 24/25 for me. I know some would say that 28/35/50 is way too close, and others would say it's perfect.
If for now I wanted to just have one wide angle (this doesn't mean forever), which of the ZM wides would you go with? I do shoot landscape work often, and architecture, but I probably won't be doing much commercial architecture work anymore as I'm shifting my photography priorities.
YYV_146
Well-known
The planar 50 is a nice and sharp lens, but take a look at the new CV 50mm 1.5 ASPH. IMO it is the best overall modern RF 50mm beside of the Summilux ASPH. The CV does draw differently, so it might depend on your preference for similar rendition across the lens line.
Are you talking about normal wides or superwides? I don't like to shoot landscapes with lenses that are too wide, but if SWs are your thing I'd go with the 18mm Distagon. the 18mm is the only Cosina Zeiss lens that I regard as being superior to the Leica counterpart (the 18mm SEM).
For a mild wide, the Leica 24mm F3.8 is as good as it gets. The Zeiss Biogons sometimes do not play well with digital. The 25mm should be okay, though.
Are you talking about normal wides or superwides? I don't like to shoot landscapes with lenses that are too wide, but if SWs are your thing I'd go with the 18mm Distagon. the 18mm is the only Cosina Zeiss lens that I regard as being superior to the Leica counterpart (the 18mm SEM).
For a mild wide, the Leica 24mm F3.8 is as good as it gets. The Zeiss Biogons sometimes do not play well with digital. The 25mm should be okay, though.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
I typically take 21/35-50/75:
21-35mm Dual Hexanon
35/1.4 Leica ASPH, 40mm Rokkor, or 50mm ZM Sonnar
75mm Summarit
The 21/4.5 Zeiss has a lot of color shift. It's correctable, but it's still another step.
Dante
21-35mm Dual Hexanon
35/1.4 Leica ASPH, 40mm Rokkor, or 50mm ZM Sonnar
75mm Summarit
The 21/4.5 Zeiss has a lot of color shift. It's correctable, but it's still another step.
Dante
35photo
Well-known
The 25mm 2.8 ZM lens smokes! Renders beautifully and is SUPER SHARP! Haven't seen an color shift either..its a winner.
semordnilap
Well-known
I'd get the 25 ZM, if you can't swing a 28 cron. I never use liveview on the 240, so I might decide based on framelines, but you might decide differently...
I personally like 28/50/90, though I shoot plenty with a 40 cron.
I personally like 28/50/90, though I shoot plenty with a 40 cron.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
I've been using a similar set up to you, mainly the Zeiss Zm 35mm F2 Biogon and 50mm f1.4 Lux E46. No problems what so ever.
dseelig
David
50
50
Me I had the previous nokton 50 1.5 lots of fringing and way too soft unless this has had major upgrades stay away the planar is a great lens
50
Me I had the previous nokton 50 1.5 lots of fringing and way too soft unless this has had major upgrades stay away the planar is a great lens
dseelig
David
PS if goig cheap the 25 zeiss is an amazing lens
agoglanian
Reconnected.
I too had the previous voigtlander 50mm and I did like its rendering style but I used it on film with a Bessa R2.
I guess I'll just start with 35/50 ZM lenses and then look to a wide when I really need one.
I would like to eventually get Leica glass down the road but I've heard nothing but positive things about the Zeiss ZM lenses (though I have heard a few complaints about build quality).
So is the consensus that the 25 would be the better lens to buy than the 28mm? I'm not looking for ultra wide angle with this camera (yet) just usefully wide.
As a note I do have my trusty Ricoh GR with the surprisingly good GW-3 adapter so I effectively have a 21/28mm setup in that camera.
I guess I'll just start with 35/50 ZM lenses and then look to a wide when I really need one.
I would like to eventually get Leica glass down the road but I've heard nothing but positive things about the Zeiss ZM lenses (though I have heard a few complaints about build quality).
So is the consensus that the 25 would be the better lens to buy than the 28mm? I'm not looking for ultra wide angle with this camera (yet) just usefully wide.
As a note I do have my trusty Ricoh GR with the surprisingly good GW-3 adapter so I effectively have a 21/28mm setup in that camera.
35photo
Well-known
25/35/50 is the setup I have...If you a 28 and a 35 they a close in focal length, that why I think the 25 makes for sense.. or just go 21/28/50 depends for comfortable you are shooting wide.. quality wise.. between the 25 ZM and the 28 ZM or the 28 Elmarit vs the 25 ZM...totally splitting hairs I've seen images from the 28 ZM and the 25 ZM.. really close call the 25 might be a bit better...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
28/35/50 doesn't sound too narrow a range to me. I do 28-35/50/90, but I really use the 90 only once in a while.
I like the Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH (LTM), it has lovely rendering if a touch different from the Summilux 50.
On the wider end, I've been shooting with both the Color Skopar 28 and Color Skopar 35 lenses. At some point I will acquire a Summilux 35 or a Summicron 28, but both of these Voigtländer lenses pitch way above their prices.
I'm not dissing the Zeiss ZM lenses, btw. I'm just not as familiar with them. I tend to prefer the look from the Voigtländer and Leica lenses.
G
I like the Nokton 50/1.5 ASPH (LTM), it has lovely rendering if a touch different from the Summilux 50.
On the wider end, I've been shooting with both the Color Skopar 28 and Color Skopar 35 lenses. At some point I will acquire a Summilux 35 or a Summicron 28, but both of these Voigtländer lenses pitch way above their prices.
I'm not dissing the Zeiss ZM lenses, btw. I'm just not as familiar with them. I tend to prefer the look from the Voigtländer and Leica lenses.
G
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
I have a M240 and presently my bag has these lenses.
ZM 35/2 Biogon
ZM 50/2 Planar
90/2 pre-ASPH Summicron for protraits w/ an Olympus VF2 finder.
Metz 20 C-2 flash
My other 90mm is the CV 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar which I find to be a nice sharp 90mm.
I'm not much of a wide-angle user as the wide perspective is often distracting to me. But I do have a 28/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH and CV 21/4 Skopar for certain situations.
The advantage of the 28/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH and the CV 21/4 are their compact size, which for me is a consideration as my bigger RF bag is a Domke F-5xb. Leaving the huge 90/2 at home, I can take both wider lenses. Or leaving the VF2 viewfinder home also, I can add the 28/2.8 and CV 90/3.5.
The less pricey ZM 28/2.8 might be carried in this bag if I left out the Metz 20 C-2 flash. Lots of folks here would do that.
If you're more comfortable with 28mm and 21mm, I hesitate to recommend a 25mm as a compromise to having both a 28mm and a 21mm, even the stellar ZM 25/2.8. If you thought 28 was too close to 35, then this 25 could be the way to go.
FWIW, when really going compact in a 35-50-90 kit, I use the following setup with a Domke F-5xa.
CV 35/2.5 Color Skopar
50/2.5 Summarit or 50/2.8 Elmar-M
CV 90/3.5 Apo Lanthar
Metz 20 C-2 Flash
With this smaller bag, ZM 50/2 and 35/2 are little long for my comfort. While giving up about a stop of aperture, I gain portability and lose little to no perceptible image quality in my shots. But of course, YMMV.
Again, another wider lens might be carried if I left out the flash.
ZM 35/2 Biogon
ZM 50/2 Planar
90/2 pre-ASPH Summicron for protraits w/ an Olympus VF2 finder.
Metz 20 C-2 flash
My other 90mm is the CV 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar which I find to be a nice sharp 90mm.
I'm not much of a wide-angle user as the wide perspective is often distracting to me. But I do have a 28/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH and CV 21/4 Skopar for certain situations.
The advantage of the 28/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH and the CV 21/4 are their compact size, which for me is a consideration as my bigger RF bag is a Domke F-5xb. Leaving the huge 90/2 at home, I can take both wider lenses. Or leaving the VF2 viewfinder home also, I can add the 28/2.8 and CV 90/3.5.
The less pricey ZM 28/2.8 might be carried in this bag if I left out the Metz 20 C-2 flash. Lots of folks here would do that.
If you're more comfortable with 28mm and 21mm, I hesitate to recommend a 25mm as a compromise to having both a 28mm and a 21mm, even the stellar ZM 25/2.8. If you thought 28 was too close to 35, then this 25 could be the way to go.
FWIW, when really going compact in a 35-50-90 kit, I use the following setup with a Domke F-5xa.
CV 35/2.5 Color Skopar
50/2.5 Summarit or 50/2.8 Elmar-M
CV 90/3.5 Apo Lanthar
Metz 20 C-2 Flash
With this smaller bag, ZM 50/2 and 35/2 are little long for my comfort. While giving up about a stop of aperture, I gain portability and lose little to no perceptible image quality in my shots. But of course, YMMV.
Again, another wider lens might be carried if I left out the flash.
DNG
Film Friendly
indoors, (friends home, pubs etc) a 28 is a bit better, true it isn't much wider than a 35,
but, in tighter areas, it does make a difference.
My favs are 24/50 film.. 28/35/50 digital (all are in Fov)
but, in tighter areas, it does make a difference.
My favs are 24/50 film.. 28/35/50 digital (all are in Fov)
lukitas
second hand noob
I like my voigtländer ultron 28, 2 a lot.
Close to what I see in the .72 viewfinder of the M2. Sharp.
M2, Tri-X
Close to what I see in the .72 viewfinder of the M2. Sharp.
M2, Tri-X
kxl
Social Documentary
No M240 
but I do own or have owned a few ZM lenses.
-18/4.0 - I almost sold this because it's difficult to compose with a lens this wide. But when I get it right, it's awesome. But that's all user error; no fault of the lens.
-21/2.8 - a nice enough lens, with some light fall off and distortion. I sold my copy a while back; if I do get another 21mm, I'd probably opt for the ZM 21/4.5
- 25/2.8 - just get one. On film, it's awesome. I don't have a DRF, but I would think it would work well on a M240. It fails miserably on my A7R.
- 28/2.8 - never owned one, but when it came time for me to get a 28mm, I opted for the Hexanon-M primarily because it was a good deal. But even if you take price out of consideration, IMHO, the Hex-M outperforms the ZM.
- 35/2.0 - a nice sharp lens, but for me, seemed like it lacked character. Also, I've lost my taste for the FOV from a 35mm lens. I ended up trading this lens recently as part of a package for DSLR gear. Never had the pleasure of shooting the 35/2.8.
- 50/2.0 Planar - sharp and even from center to edge. My go-to 50mm lens, especially if I know I have to shoot quickly.
- 50/1.5 Sonnar - **for me** this is a "character lens." Mine is optimized for f1.5 and I primarily shoot it at f1.5. If it's too bright outside, I use an ND filter to allow me to keep it at f1.5. Maybe a bit extreme, but it works for me.
I've never owned either of the ZM 85's, although I would love to try out the Sonnar. For reach, I use a CV 90/3.5 and a Nikon 105/2.5
but I do own or have owned a few ZM lenses.-18/4.0 - I almost sold this because it's difficult to compose with a lens this wide. But when I get it right, it's awesome. But that's all user error; no fault of the lens.
-21/2.8 - a nice enough lens, with some light fall off and distortion. I sold my copy a while back; if I do get another 21mm, I'd probably opt for the ZM 21/4.5
- 25/2.8 - just get one. On film, it's awesome. I don't have a DRF, but I would think it would work well on a M240. It fails miserably on my A7R.
- 28/2.8 - never owned one, but when it came time for me to get a 28mm, I opted for the Hexanon-M primarily because it was a good deal. But even if you take price out of consideration, IMHO, the Hex-M outperforms the ZM.
- 35/2.0 - a nice sharp lens, but for me, seemed like it lacked character. Also, I've lost my taste for the FOV from a 35mm lens. I ended up trading this lens recently as part of a package for DSLR gear. Never had the pleasure of shooting the 35/2.8.
- 50/2.0 Planar - sharp and even from center to edge. My go-to 50mm lens, especially if I know I have to shoot quickly.
- 50/1.5 Sonnar - **for me** this is a "character lens." Mine is optimized for f1.5 and I primarily shoot it at f1.5. If it's too bright outside, I use an ND filter to allow me to keep it at f1.5. Maybe a bit extreme, but it works for me.
I've never owned either of the ZM 85's, although I would love to try out the Sonnar. For reach, I use a CV 90/3.5 and a Nikon 105/2.5
Huss
Veteran
If money is tight I would get one used Leica lens rather than two ZM lenses, especially seeing you want to go in that direction anyway. It would be about the same $$.
There is something liberating about using only one lens on a RF camera. It will really allow you to bond with it and develop a look.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I use both ZM and Leica glass, and they all are lovely.)
There is something liberating about using only one lens on a RF camera. It will really allow you to bond with it and develop a look.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I use both ZM and Leica glass, and they all are lovely.)
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I was a little disappointed with the 50mm C Sonnar on my 240 ... I think it's a great lens for film but doesn't render as nicely with digital.
My lens selection is all OM SLR at the moment via an adapter and EVF ... 85mm f2, 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f2. The late Zuiko 35mm f2 is supposedly as good as a Summicron but I'm mostly using the 50mm f1.2 at the moment.
My lens selection is all OM SLR at the moment via an adapter and EVF ... 85mm f2, 50mm f1.2 and 35mm f2. The late Zuiko 35mm f2 is supposedly as good as a Summicron but I'm mostly using the 50mm f1.2 at the moment.
Huss
Veteran
I guess I don't understand this. If you are not using the rangefinder, not using Leica lenses, use a lens adapter, and use a clip on EVF, why didn't you just get a Sony A7 for 1/3 of the price?
Or do you still have Leica glass and use the M as a rangefinder with that?
Richard G
Veteran
Can't see that you'll be unhappy with the ZM 35 2.0.
For me size is a huge consideration, on the camera, in the bag and over the shoulder.
The Zeiss 25 2.8 is fantastic and I like it on the M9 but I've hardly used it as it's quite big. The tiny VC 25 f4 is great except for its proneness to flare, or at least my copy. I prefer the ZM C Biogon 21 4.5 because of its negligible distortion for architecture and its compact size. I then picked up the Leica 28 2.8 ASPH for $1600 here second hand and it is sharp and very small and I have adapted to the 28 FOV. The 21 is no longer always in my bag. There's a strong following here for the ZM 28 equivalent, but it's sure to be a little bigger. The Planar for your 50 can't go wrong. For $1k on eBay I got a perfect Elmar M 50 2.8 which collapses fine on the M9 and is a lovely lens and very compact. The FOV for all these lenses is a fair bit wider than the framelines in the M9 finder. I don't know about the M.
For me size is a huge consideration, on the camera, in the bag and over the shoulder.
The Zeiss 25 2.8 is fantastic and I like it on the M9 but I've hardly used it as it's quite big. The tiny VC 25 f4 is great except for its proneness to flare, or at least my copy. I prefer the ZM C Biogon 21 4.5 because of its negligible distortion for architecture and its compact size. I then picked up the Leica 28 2.8 ASPH for $1600 here second hand and it is sharp and very small and I have adapted to the 28 FOV. The 21 is no longer always in my bag. There's a strong following here for the ZM 28 equivalent, but it's sure to be a little bigger. The Planar for your 50 can't go wrong. For $1k on eBay I got a perfect Elmar M 50 2.8 which collapses fine on the M9 and is a lovely lens and very compact. The FOV for all these lenses is a fair bit wider than the framelines in the M9 finder. I don't know about the M.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Yes sorry I should have been clearer ... I also have a range of Zeiss RF lenses 25, 35 and 50mm and do use the rangefinder when appropriate.
I see where you're coming from though because occasionally when I'm using my Zuikos with the adapter and EVF I think to myself .... "I could be doing this with an A7 and be a substantial amount better off!"